Transcript

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: The Education Minister Christopher Pyne has joined us from our Melbourne studio.

Christopher Pyne, good evening.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE, EDUCATION MINISTER: Good evening, Emma. It's nice to be with you again.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now we hear tonight that the Prime Minister has cancelled his trip to Deakin University tomorrow where he was supposed to be accompanying you on a visit to a research facility at Deakin University. Can you tell us exactly why he's decided not to go?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well the advice from the Australian Federal Police was that they were concerned about the safety, particularly of innocent bystanders, because tomorrow is the student's National Day of Action, so-called, where they're protesting against having to contribute more to their own education. And so the Prime Minister made the decision and his office that it would be wiser to not go and to create that tumult at Deakin University so students can get on with their studies unmolested by the Socialist Alternative, which seem quite intent on shutting down democracy in Australia.

EMMA ALBERICI: Will you still be attending?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, I won't be.

EMMA ALBERICI: Are you concerned as well about your own personal safety?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well the advice from the Australian Federal Police was that they were concerned about our safety, but also that they were concerned about the safety of the innocent bystanders who might be impacted upon by the Socialist Alternative. And it's a great shame, of course, in the modern era that this would be the case, but since the Q&A show about two weeks ago, it's been clear that the Socialist Alternative students are trying to make a point and shut down other people's opinions in the debate, which is a great pity because one of the terrific things about Australia is that people can have their own opinion and express it and should be able to do so without fear of being molested or assaulted as Julie Bishop was recently and Sophie Mirabella was only a couple of days ago.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now on the issue of deregulation of university fees, what is the problem your government is trying to fix there?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well there's a couple of things that we're trying to do with these very important higher education reforms, Emma. The first is to spread opportunity to more students. So we want 80,000 more students to be able to access sub-bachelor degrees like diplomas and associate degrees that typically low SES students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds use to enter the undergraduate degree at universities and then get the opportunity to earn 75 per cent more over a lifetime than people without a university degree. So we want to spread opportunity to more students. But we also want to give our universities the chance to thrive and be the best they can be and they can't do that without more revenue and they can't get that revenue from the Australian taxpayer 'cause the Australian taxpayer's already contributing 60 per cent of the cost of the tuition fees of students, but the Asian universities are becoming extremely competitive. Five years ago there were no Chinese universities in the top 200 in the world; now there are five, and we need to give our best universities the chance to compete against them and they need more revenue to be able to invest in research and quality teaching.

EMMA ALBERICI: In terms of public investment in tertiary education as a proportion of GDP, Australia already ranks 23rd out of 28 OECD countries. How will taking more government money out of universities contribute to making Australia's universities the best in the world?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: But Emma, I think you'll find that that figure doesn't include the contribution that students make through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme and if that ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Yes, indeed, that's because that's their contribution and I'm talking about public contribution.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: (Laughs) Correct. Well the way to contribute to universities is not only to take money from the Australian taxpayer. Of course there are other ways to get revenue into universities and one of those is through philanthropic bequests like the ones we've seen recently from Andrew Forrest and the Westpac Banking Corporation. But it's also through students contributing to their own income - their own, sorry, education, given that when they graduate they'll earn 75 per cent more than people without a university degree. At the moment they're only contributing about 40 per cent of the costs of their tuition fees. So, if you actually include ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Can I just pull you up on that ...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: ... the contribution that they make, we are very competitive in the OECD in terms of our spending on education.

EMMA ALBERICI: But my specific question, Christopher Pyne - sorry, because it is an incredibly complex area - but my question was specifically public contribution; that is, taxpayer contribution, ...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well we're not a socialist country so we don't only have public contributions.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... distinctly as opposed - no, of course, but in the OECD, as I pointed out, we're already number 23 out of 28 in terms of the Government's contribution. So ...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It's a false comparison.

EMMA ALBERICI: Well, we can agree to disagree on that score.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Again.

EMMA ALBERICI: I'm going with the OECD figures.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: OK.

EMMA ALBERICI: That's all I can go by. But isn't the ...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well you've got to put all the figures in, both private and public contributions.

EMMA ALBERICI: Isn't it the point though that our progressive taxation system already allows that the more you earn, the more tax you pay, so that you contribute your fair share to public services like higher education? So in some ways aren't you setting up for a double whammy here, that they're paying more at the outset and then also more through their taxation once they do graduate?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well the dichotomy to that is you're arguing against a progressive taxation system and I'm in favour of progressive income tax system and I'm also in favour of students contributing to their own education given that they'll get a massive personal benefit from doing so. I mean, over a lifetime, Emma, they'll earn $1 million more than people who don't go to university. Now, less than 40 per cent of the population have a university degree, so more than 60 per cent of the Australian public are paying 60 per cent of the costs of students to go to uni and those students will get a huge personal benefit. It's a very generous deal.

EMMA ALBERICI: But the corollary, as I just said - the corollary, as I just said, is the more you earn, the more tax you pay, so ...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well I'm in favour of both the progressive tax system and I'm in favour of the students contributing and I would have thought most people at the ABC would be in favour of both those things too.

EMMA ALBERICI: Last week on Lateline, Clive Palmer seemed supportive of your changes to higher education. This week he says there should be no student contribution. Has he changed his mind a.) because the policy is not a good one, or, is it because you haven't been a good enough salesman?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: (Laughs) Well, the sales job has only just begun, Emma, and there's a lot of water to go under the bridge. If Clive had his way and the Higher Education Contribution Scheme was abolished, it would immediately mean that a $52 billion debt that the Commonwealth has as an asset on its books would be written off and the university would lose about $12 billion a year in student contribution to education. Most universities in Australia would close within a very short space of time. So, I don't know if Clive has thought through entirely what he's proposing. I guess in a nirvana paradise kind of world, no students would have to pay for their university degrees, there'd be free housing for everyone, free health for everyone, free schooling for everyone, but unfortunately there isn't that paradise on Earth anywhere and so therefore students do need to contribute, as does the taxpayer, and we do already in a huge way. We spend about $16 billion a year on higher education from the Commonwealth Government. But Clive and I get along very well. I'm looking forward to reforming the higher education sector with Clive and I guess the proof of the pudding will be in the eating when we get these votes on the Senate floor in the months ahead.

EMMA ALBERICI: Labor's Gonski funding model was an agreement with the states over six years. You're only committing to fund four years of that agreement - that's a two-year shortfall. Can you guarantee that no school will be worse off as a result of your changes?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, Emma, the Government always promised before the election that we would fund the new school funding model over four years. That was exactly what we said and we've kept our commitments. I can tell you that education funding will be more in 2017 under the Coalition than it would have been under Labor because Bill Shorten ripped out $1.2 billion sneakily just before the election in the pre-election fiscal outlook. Now I put it back in and I bought Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland into the national school funding model, so ironically, I delivered the national new school funding model. And in 2017, we'll spend $18.1 billion.

EMMA ALBERICI: Can I draw you back to my initial question, which you've almost made me forget what it was, ...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: (Laughs)

EMMA ALBERICI: ... which was: can you guarantee that no school will be worse off as a result of the fact that you are only going to be funding four of the six years that was agreed to under the Gonski model?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well nobody can guarantee that, Emma, because the Commonwealth Government doesn't - isn't the main funder of public schools. So if a state ...

EMMA ALBERICI: But can I just hold you up on that because you just said no-one could guarantee that, and yet, just before the election, Tony Abbott said - and this is quoting him - "No school will be worse off. We think that Gonski money's important."

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Yes, he said no school will be worse off as a consequence of anything that the Commonwealth does and that remains the case. But if the states or territories cut their funding, I can't be responsible for that and I won't be responsible for that because they own and operate all the public schools. But no school will be worse off because of anything the Commonwealth does because even at the end of the four-year funding agreement, which has always been four years, as are the forward estimates, the following year ...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, I think you'll find you're confusing them. The school funding agreement has always been four years.

EMMA ALBERICI: The one that Labor struck with the states was six years.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: But not - but not the - but it wasn't a national school funding model delivered in WA, NT and Queensland or in non-government schooling. So, that is a bit of a furphy that Labor continues to propagate. They didn't put the money in the budget for the fifth and sixth year because the budget is four years and so is the funding agreement. And I can tell you from the end of four-year agreement, in the next year after that, schools will get the same base money plus CPI, ...

EMMA ALBERICI: We'll get to that.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: ... so I can tell you that every year, funding will increase under the Coalition.

EMMA ALBERICI: Let's try and keep these matters as simple as we possibly can so the audience doesn't lose track. You just said then that no school will be worse off as a result of anything the Commonwealth does, but that you can't be responsible for what the states do.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: That's right.

EMMA ALBERICI: And do correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure you will, ...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I wouldn't, Emma.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... but part of the funding model under Gonski required states to guarantee not to cut school funding in return for that federal money that was allocated by Labor. Will you therefore not be enforcing that part of the agreement?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Correct.

EMMA ALBERICI: Why not?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Because we're not going to infantilise the states and the territories. The states and territories can make their own decisions about their funding.

EMMA ALBERICI: But isn't it fair enough for the Commonwealth to say, "If I'm going to give you a dollar, I want to make sure you're not going to take a dollar out of your education system"? Wasn't that a sensible thing for the Federal Government to be saying to the states, that if they're going to contribute, that the states should agree not to take money out of education?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, I don't think so.

EMMA ALBERICI: Otherwise its counter-productive, isn't it?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well how long is this question going for? If you want an answer, the answer is: no, I don't think that that was sensible because the Commonwealth doesn't own or operate any schools. Only the states and territories do. It's not the Commonwealth's job to tell state and territory governments how to spend their money. On the other hand, if a state and territory takes money out of school education, I would expect a decent Opposition in whatever state or territory that was to point out to the voter that they were reducing their spending in Education and to vote against them accordingly at the next election, if that was the voter's priority. But that is not the Commonwealth's job to be the policeman for how the states and territories divide up their budgets. That's the states' and territories' job. The difference between the Coalition and Labor is that they tried to manage from Canberra the day-to-day operations of the states and territories; we are not going to do that. Part of our election commitment, Emma, was that we would end the command-and-control features from Canberra and we would let the states and territories behave like adult governments, as they should.

EMMA ALBERICI: How can you argue that you're increasing school autonomy while at the same time - or autonomy from the states, while at the same time you are preventing schools through your school chaplains funding - the $250 million allocated in the Budget - you're preventing those schools from appointing a welfare officer unless they're associated with a religious group?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Because the School Chaplaincy Program is a separate program from the states and territories. If they want to fund school counsellors, they're welcome to do so; that's a decision that they can make. The Commonwealth, being an adult government, has made the decision that we're going to fund chaplaincies because that was the original intention of the program. Now if the states and territories want to add to that in their own way, good luck to them. This new dawn of Commonwealth-state relations is that we're going to treat the states and territories like adult governments, whereas the previous Labor government tried to be both the Commonwealth governments and the state governments.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now just on that issue of CPI, you said after the four years you've agreed to increase school funding by CPI, which is roughly 2.5 ...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Plus enrolments.

EMMA ALBERICI: Which is roughly 2.5 per cent.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Yeah.

EMMA ALBERICI: But that represents a cut in real terms, doesn't it, given Education costs have been rising by something in the order of five to six per cent a year?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, it doesn't represent a cut in real terms 'cause real terms are represented by the Consumer Price Index rising or falling - of course, it doesn't really fall very often. The promise is that it'll rise with Consumer Price Index plus enrolments, which will mean a real increase in spending.

EMMA ALBERICI: Can I just interrupt you - can I just make the caveat there that the Australian Bureau of Statistics issues the CPI; they also issue the Education Cost Index, which they say has been rising between five and six per cent a year?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, there isn't an unending bucket of money anywhere, Emma, for the funding of what people would necessarily like in a perfect world. When we were elected in September, we were elected on the basis that we would make the difficult decisions. Now I think it is a very good outcome for schools not only that we are spending more in the next four years than Labor would have, but that beyond that we can promise to increase spending by CPI plus enrolments. But I'd also draw you back to the fact that Education isn't all about how much money you spend. And Andrew Leigh, the Labor Party Assistant - Shadow Assistant Treasurer has made this point himself. It's also about teacher quality, so we're investing in that; it's about parental engagement, the autonomy of schools and a robust curriculum. One mustn't be obsessed about funding because actually the OECD pointed out in their PISA results last year that for Australia - and I know you like to quote the OECD - that Australia was the one country where teacher quality had the biggest impact on the outcome for students.

EMMA ALBERICI: OK, and just finally, I wanted to ask you about your fellow federal Liberal MP Craig Laundy, who tonight has been expressing some concerns about the Government's proposed changes to the aged pension. He reckons that's the number one issue his constituents have been raising with him and I'm wondering has that been your experience as you've been speaking to people going around the country?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well I've had a range of issues raised with me over the last couple of weeks, not least of which was the performance of the students on the ABC's Q&A program. But since the Budget, obviously as the Minister for Education, I've been asked a lot about Education issues, but it doesn't surprise me that pensioners are worried about the pension because they've been fed a whole lot of misinformation by the Labor Party, who've been trying to pretend that the pension is being reduced when in fact that is not happening. Between now and 2017 pension rises will be exactly as expected, and then after 2017, they'll be linked to the CPI rather than to the MTAWE Index. Now, that still sees pensions rising all the time. In fact, there was a pension rise in March of $14.80 and there'll be a pension rise in September of about the same amount, and every six months, right through until 2017. But pensioners are very susceptible to misinformation campaigns because they obviously don't have a great deal of income and they rely on that income to live and it's quite wicked of the Labor Party to try and frighten pensioners in the way that they have. But I'm sure that over the weeks and months ahead, pensioners will work out that Labor is trying to con them and they'll come back to the Coalition, recognising that we've always been the best party for the aged pensioners in Australia.

EMMA ALBERICI: We're out of time. Christopher Pyne, thank you very much.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It's always a pleasure. Thank you.

Do you have a comment or a story idea? Get in touch with the Lateline team by clicking here.